User talk:Robbie SWE

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  • How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
  • Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including, there is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
  • The FAQ aim to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! Nadando 19:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


Hello Robbie, I'm bothering you for a personal translation request:) My friend's going to get a tattoo and he asked me of which language he should have it. Can you please tell me what "she exists as long as her presence is felt" means in Romanian and Swedish? I don't want it to sound stupid as he'll have it forever; so if you have a better idea to translate with a similar meaning, I'd appreciate that :) Thank you so much in advance! Sinek 17:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thank you very much for your friendly response and for your translations! That really helped but.. It's a bit longer than we expected; it means more pain and more money :D To ask you for your personal oppinion, what would you advise? Something a bit shorter, like "feeling perpetuates her" or anything else you'd like. Am I being too much? :D Sorry for bothering you, and waitin for your answer. Cheers! Sinek 21:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hii! How is it goin? Well I want to thank you for your helps once again, and tell you what happened. My friend chose a Latin translation and we were at the tattoo shop with all translations I found. There was a girl with her boyfriend and they looked at the translations, then suddenly made up their mind! Her boyfriend got "Hon är alltid med mig" and she got "Imortală în sufletul meu". Not my friend, but other two guys will carry your translations forever :) Sinek 09:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ett verb[edit]

Har du lust att bidra med synpunkter i raderingsdiskussionen om verbformen göro, tack? --LA2 16:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

commas and cedillas[edit]

Hello. If you ever want help to move Romanian entries from cedillas to commas in ro.wiktionary, let me know. I've got a script that can do the job. --flyax 00:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

See ro:Utilizator:Flyax/categories. It's not a great "lesson", anyhow have a look. --flyax 13:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I'm wiliing to help. Here are my thoughts. First we have to find all Romanian entries with a t/s cedilla. That's easy (see the instructions on my ro.wikt page). Then we have to exclude the entries that have a second language section, i.e. Turkish. I don't know if there are other languages using these t/s cedilla characters, so I'll need your help in that. If Turkish is the only language we have to take care about, then this step is also quite simple and we can proceed to renaming all Romanian entries by bot.

The final step is to change each and every instance of t/s cedilla in the entries' body. That will be a bit more tricky because we'll have to exclude again any Turkish (or other as well?) words, existing let's say in translations or etymologies. This is something that may need to wait a bit - we wouldn't want to mess entries up. But I think we'll find a solution. So, what do you think? Do you want me to go on with movings entries for now and wait for the rest? --flyax 13:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply!
Turkish is the only language that uses a s cedilla (Romanian was the only language using a t cedilla). I can recall boş and şah as being the only shared entries with Turkish.
I think you can go ahead and start moving entries on the condition that they remain as redirects (I would also like to explore the possibility of creating a robot that automatically creates cedilla redirects every time an article containing the new letters is created).
I'm concerned about the necessary changes to entries' body: it has to be done but I don't know how to do it. Even articles in other languages containing Romanian translations have to be dealt with.
Let me know what I can do!
Best Regards --Robbie SWE 13:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
OK. I think that by Friday I'll be ready to move (rename) the Romanian entries. I suggest that from now on we continue our discussion on ro.wikt. I' ll take the liberty to copy these messages there, on my discussion page. --flyax 18:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


I know we had talked about him before and I was supposed to be watching his edits, which I did a bit... but the sânt thing was just too much for even me, so I blocked him for 6 months. So that'll be at least a break from his viral editing. :) OH, daca nu ma recunosti, sunt Opiaterein :D Numele e nou. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 13:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi (Dick)Laurent! Yes, I remember you (an intelligent and hardworking linguist is never forgotten ;-) and thank you for blocking BaicanXXX. I've been keeping him under daily surveillance, but I just kind of stopped bothering to change his incorrect edits (there are far too many). However, the "sânt" thing really p****d me off, because it has never been correct, ever (sînt; yeah...ok, not my cup of tea but still alright; sunt...definitely!). Take care :-) --Robbie SWE 19:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Salut! I wanted to be sure you spotted this discussion, in case you wanted to comment on whether User:Torvalu4 is correct that many Romanian words are from Albanian, or whether he is pushing some POV. - -sche (discuss) 20:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Gender of audio in Romanian[edit]

What is the gender of this word? The translation table said it was "m f n" which seemed like a mistake to me. —CodeCat 17:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Actually it is an invariable adjective so it is not declined. I guess the person who added it meant that it is "audio" across genders. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. —CodeCat 18:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


Pot deveni tău amic? --Æ&Œ (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't get your request? --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Can I be your friend? --Æ&Œ (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Aren't we all friends on Wiktionary? ;-) (PS: just to help you with your Romanian: it should be "pot deveni amicul tău?") --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you get my next message? --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you double‐check this? --Æ&Œ (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems alright to me. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Cum se spune «I can speak Romanian» în română? --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi, what's the plural form of that Romanian demonym? I wasn't too sure about it. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'll go back and add the correct forms. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Now, for the plural form of Romanian nauruan. Besides, the feminine parameter doesn't seem to work unless I add the plural form, apparently. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC) want me to check it and add the feminine plural? --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to do so. I mean, the feminine form doesn't display unless the plural is entered. All I did was to make a guess. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do so. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
What's the plural form of niuean? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
It's niueni and I added it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Missing Romanian plurals[edit]

Hi Robbie. In case you're interested in Romanian plurals, I recently made a category of Romanian entries missing plurals. Perhaps you could check some, and if you have time you could create the plurals (WT:ACCEL is a good tool for doing this). --Type56op9 (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for the initiative! I'm gonna take a look and contribute when I'll have the time. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Checking up on BAICAN XXX[edit]

He's been contributing more after his warning. It all looks good to me, but I know next to no Romanian, so I'd appreciate if you could check his edits as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I've checked yesterday's translations and most were ok. But I don't get Baican's sudden "love" for diminutives and plurals - he added quite a few and he doesn't provide any additional information such as etymology, pronunciation, inflection or what they actually mean. For instance perniță means (1) cushion, (2) pinball, pincushion, (3) hassock, (4) shoulder pad etc. In Baican's latest contributions he includes pronunciation templates but doesn't actually provide IPA or SAMPA pronunciations. Doesn't that mess up the categories - words lacking pronunciation appear as if they do? --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

victorie a la Pyrrhus[edit]

Eu stau și mă mir cu ce nonșalanță faci tu uz de verificabilitatea modului corect de scriere de la ro.Wikipediaǃ ... Doar dacă mă gândesc că pe acolo se mișcă în voie de vreo câteva luni bune un agramat ca userul Andrei Bacria, mă umflă râsul despre această verificabilitate, des invocată de tine, privind ro.W.BAICAN XXX (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

"I'm wondering, with what nonchalance you rely on the verifiability of the correct way of writing on ro.Wikipedia! ... Just when I start to think, that around there for the last couple of months, the ignorant user Andrei Bacria has been lurking, I start to laugh at this verifiability, often invoked by you, in relation to ro.Wikipedia"
(Translation for those who are interested) --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


Is there a problem with the word?

Jdogno2 (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jdogno2! No, there's no problem with the word. I was a bit concerned, because the hits I got on Google weren't convincing enough. However, a fellow user has provided citations, so I apologise for my disbelief. Keep up the good work! --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


Just curious, but what was the problem with that etymology? That's basically what the Trésor de la Langue Française says, and it's linked to it at the bottom. Word dewd544 (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm really sorry about that @Word dewd544! My mouse is on the fritz and it sometimes registers a click even when none was made – the registered click just happened to revert your edit. So your contribution was fine, it was just a hardware malfunction on my side. Promise it won't happen again :-) Keep up the good work! --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


Why did you remove the link to ustensila? Linking to empty pages is a common practice here. --Romanophile (contributions) 16:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I checked if ustensila exists in any other language, but couldn't find an example, so I figured that it wouldn't hurt if I erased it. If I acted against a policy I'm unaware of, I can add it again. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
But it’s used in Romanian. Is that inadequate? --Romanophile (contributions) 17:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I contemplated the inflected form, however, that would be a hell of an undertaking, adding the articulate form wherever it coincides with the main article. E.g. consider coapsă, boacă, moacă, lipsă etc. they're definitely unique Romanian words – should we include the inflected forms as a "see also" if they still lead the reader to the same initial article? As long as there is no rule about it, I thought it better to avoid that discussion. But as I said earlier, I don't mind adding it again as long as it serves a purpose. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I don’t think that there’s an urgency to add them all, so nobody should feel forced to make all of those links. (An automaton would be more appropriate for that task.) Some entries like cliche and Æsop contain redirections even though the definitions have the exact same links, and people seem fine with them. @-sche, do you have any comments? --Romanophile (contributions) 17:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
There's no harm in linking to inflected/alternative forms that just lead the reader back to the initial page, or that are linked-to on the definition line or in the inflection table. It's also not a high priority. I wouldn't remove existing links, but I wouldn't normally bother to add them in cases like this, either. Hypothetically, things like ustensila or Æsop might be words in other languages, in which cases the links would be useful. - -sche (discuss) 23:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Then I'll put it back. Thank you for your input! --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


Does this mean something like ‘sweetheart’ or ‘dear’ in Romanian? Because that’s what I’m inferring from the 2nd definition here. --Romanophile (contributions) 10:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, you're kind of right – it is used as a term of endearment, but it's much stronger than ‘sweetheart’ or ‘dear’. If we take a look at the English definition of life, we find:
"7. Something which is inherently part of a person's existence, such as job, family, a loved one, etc."
She's my love, my life.‎
That's pretty much the connotation in Romanian too. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah! It looks like I was 90% accurate. I myself don’t usually see life used in that sense, which is why my guess was imperfect. --Romanophile (contributions) 12:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated: do you know how to say solēre in Romanian? --Romanophile (contributions) 12:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It depends which meaning you're after:
Hope this information was helpful. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Is elevator a good synonym of ascensor? --Romanophile (contributions) 04:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, their function is basically the same; to transport heavy loads vertically. However, looking at the definitions in my dictionaries, elevator ([1]) was never mentioned to transport people, only heavy materials or goods in construction sites, harbours, train stations, etc. Ascensor ([2]) is used for both people and goods in high-rises. Then yet again, I personally use lift ([3]) which designates your run-of-the-mill elevator for people (from 3+ people). Hope this helped! --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. Your feedback is strengthening Wikcionario. I decided to add elevator as a hyponym here, which seems like a good fit to me. --Romanophile (contributions) 12:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, this is really weird. I could have sworn that I made the Spanish entry for viață a few days ago, but I looked around on the project and found no traces of the entry. There was no copy of it on my hard‐drive either. I think that somehow my brain tricked me into thinking that I had created the entry when I never did. Probably a side‐effect from undersleeping. Anyway, here’s the Spanish version. I know that your Spanish is basic, but it might still be interesting to look at. --Romanophile (contributions) 13:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

To be completely honest, my Spanish is much better than I give it credit :-) I took a look at the entry and it seems ok, just did some minor corrections to the expressions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Does însemna conjugate differently depending on the meaning? --Romanophile (contributions) 20:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Romanophile Yes, you're right. When the sense is "to mean, to signify", the verb "a însemna" takes the first declension table (eu însemn, el/ea înseamnă etc.), while it takes the second declension table (eu însemnez, el/ea însemnează etc.) when the sense is "to mark, to note". I suspect it has to do with the etymology – while the English article only mentions a Latin etymology, which definitely is true for the first meaning, DEX also mentions în + semn as an alternative to what I believe to be the second sense. I believe it to be a plausible explanation for the second declension. Hope this helped, don't hesitate to contact me again if anything is unclear. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

[4], is the declension correct? --Romanophile (contributions) 18:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Romanophile looks fine. However, historically, the term has been interpreted as being neuter, therefore resulting in a plural form ending in -e. Don't have a more reliable source than Scriban (1939) though. Considering that the neuter is considered archaic, I wouldn't be all too worried about it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you know any synonyms for ferăstrău? --Romanophile (contributions) 12:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Romanophile first and foremost we have the variants ferestrău, fierăstrău and herăstrău. As for synonyms, we have a couple of (very) regional words: chimilioară, corzar and firez/firiz (source). --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
There’s also șegă, but are any of these CFI‐compliant? --Romanophile (contributions) 12:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, never heard of șegă before, so thank you for introducing it! The variants are CFI-compliant and I think the synonyms are too. However, I can't provide any citations for the regionalisms because they're not a part of a day-to-day Romanian vocabulary. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I was going to mention this to you earlier, but I di’n’t remember until I had a dream about it. When people misspell words, it helps me find obsolete spellings in other languages, such as this one, so please never learn how to spell perfectly or else I’ll run out of work to do. --Romanophile (contributions) 14:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Are degustare, degustație, gustare, savurare all synonyms (to you)? --Romanophile (contributions) 18:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I would say that degustare, degustație and savurare are synonyms (DEX backs me up on this). However, I wouldn't consider gustare as a synonym mainly because it also means "entrée", "snack" and "gustation". --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

[5]. Perfect? --Romanophile (contributions) 22:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Romanophile A-okay! I would however also add închide. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Romanian Rhymes[edit]

@Robbie SWE, can you give an example of some incorrect rhymes that he added? — Ungoliant (falai) 23:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
BAICAN XXX (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Mexico City, Merseburger etc.[edit]

You're in error.

- 20:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

According to German Wikipedia ([6]), only Mexiko-Stadt is accepted. Unless you can provide a trustworthy source to back up your allegation that I am in the wrong, your edit will be reverted. Concerning Merseburger; since Merseburgerin implies a woman from Merseburg, it is necessary to underline this differentiation. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
WP is not a reliable source, supports my statement (seeärung) ), and I can give a reliable source, namely .
Anyway, "Merseburger" is not restricted to males, which is true for many words in -er, while the word with -in is restricted to females. Of course, in the context the basic form is often used to refer to males while the form with -in is used for females (as in "Zuschauer und Zuschauerinnen"), but it's also quite common to use the normal form for both (as "Zuschauer" meaning "männliche und weibliche Zuschauer"). E.g. one can search for "-er beiderlei Geschlechts", "weibliche -er", "männliche und weibliche -er" etc. and quite often one can find results which without a doubt proof that the basic form in -er is used sexus-neutral.
I'm currently looking at the Begriffsklärung and it implicitly says "Mexiko-Stadt, die Hauptstadt Mexikos" so it isn't confused with "Mexiko, ein nordamerikanischer Staat". That's the reason why "city" is added - to avoid confussion. When it comes to Merseburger I understand that it can be used to mean "a person from Merseburg". However, I strongly oppose deleting the differentiation altogether, because it exists throughout the category of German demonyms. Last but not least, for future reference, please discuss problems you have with other users before you go alleging that they are vandals. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The "Begriffserkärung" states: "Mexiko als Name steht für [...] Mexiko-Stadt, die Hauptstadt Mexikos". That is, "Mexiko" refers to the city too. Anyway, WP is not a reliable source. Duden instead is a reliable, but prescriptive, source. While it should be true, that the city nowaydays is often called "Mexiko-Stadt" to avoid confusion, "Mexiko" also refers to the city, especially in older sources.
So you see that terms in -er are used sexus-neutral. Thus the restriction with "male" is incorrect. Well, there could be other ways how to define it, like "1. a person, especially a male" or "1. person; 2. especially a male person". That would be correct too and not incorrect. I don't care whether or not it changed this way, but I'm strongly against your incorrect "male person".
I tried to discuss it, while you didn't even give reasons for you reverts, and you didn't try to talk to me. Also unreasoned reverts IMHO are very impolite.
- 20:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I happen to agree with the anon. "Merseburger" can either refer to a person of unspecified gender, or specifically to a male, while "Merseburgerin" refers only specifically to a female. Stating that "Merseburger" is a "male from Merseburg" does not account for the "person of unspecified gender". --WikiTiki89 21:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm just trying to keep Wiktionary consistent. Impolite or not, it's quite clear in the edit summary "If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page". You didn't do that; you just remade your edits, forcing me to undo them. Impolite or not, I'm never closed to discussing my edits, but you didn't follow protocol. Believe it or not I agree with you in several aspects, however, the way you went about doing these changes leaves a lot to wish for. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"I'm just trying to keep Wiktionary consistent." - 1. It's not consistend anyway. 2. It's not becoming consistend when you add "male". It's even more consistend without "male".
"the edit summary" and "You didn't do that" etc.: 1. That seems like an automatic comment, so it seemed to be dishonest. 2. I did do that. Though not at first (see above). 3. Anyway, you could have given a reason in the edit summaries, especially when re-reverting.
"you didn't follow protocol" - might be true, if I don't know the protocol, it's hard to follow it.
"leaves a lot to wish for" - might be true, but same is true for you too. Examples: (a) You could have given reasons, especially when re-reverting or even re-re-reverting. (b) You could have tried to talk to me too. (c) Instead of the automatic comment - which seemed to be dishonest -, you could have used a real comment.
""Mexicopolis" is the prefered form in Latin" - That's unlikely. googleing for "Mexicopolis" only gives a few results. "Mexicum" instead is quite common - especially in older source, that is, when Latin was more common. Of course, "Mexicum" for the city could have been more popular back then as the country was a part of Spain.
"male person" - That's still incorrect, and you even said that you know it's incorrect. Again: "[T]here could be other ways how to define it, like "1. a person, especially a male" or "1. person; 2. especially a male person". That would be correct too and not incorrect. I don't care whether or not it changed this way, but I'm strongly against your incorrect "male person"."
Labeling German "Mexiko" dated: Duden doesn't support that and Wikipedia doesn't support that too. Thus, it's unsourced. Also I doubt that it's dated. When the context is clear (like one is talking about cities or Mexico City or one is talking about historical situations), it should still be ok to just use "Mexiko".
- 21:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC), 21:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a valid source at all. As for Duden, it is a secondary source. We only accept primary sources as evidence (much unlike Wikipedia), unless it is something that is difficult to find evidence for. To find a primary source, search Google Books for quotations using the word. --WikiTiki89 22:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, "dated" is a statement. Statements needs be sourced. Thus, he should have to proof that it's dated.
As for counter-proving:"Stadt+Mexiko" from 2012 or 2003 (could be a quote) has "Mitte der Stadt Mexiko","Stadt+Mexiko" from 2016 (according to google) has "Man kennt das Land Mexiko nicht, wenn man die Stadt Mexiko nicht besucht hat." Thus "Mexiko" still refers to the city, (especially) when the context is clear. Also, though just for clarification, "Stadt Mexiko" is not a name per se, and one can also find "Stadt London", "Stadt Berlin", "Die Stadt Marburg zählt um die 70.000 Einwohner" etc. - 22:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know where your experience lies, whether it's with Wikipedia or with German Wiktionary or whatever, but you should know that at English Wiktionary, we have our own rules. If you want to say it's not dated, please prove it with direct quotations that use the word, not with citations of other sources. --WikiTiki89 22:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The google book results above should count as quotations of uses. In case of"Stadt+Mexiko" with "Man kennt das Land Mexiko nicht, wenn man die Stadt Mexiko nicht besucht hat." it's undoubtful. As for"Stadt+Mexiko" , the book (from 2012) quoted the title of another work (from 2003). In case of the other work it's a usage too. Do you want to say that a title doesn't qualify as usage? Even if titles don't qualify, one can find many more results from the 21st century."Stadt+Mexiko" ("der Stadt Mexiko", 2009),"Stadt+Mexiko" ("der heutigen Stadt Mexiko", 2011 according to google),"Mexiko+eine+Stadt" ("Mexiko eine Stadt der Spaziergänger", 2003, though could be a quote from another work from the 20th or 21st century). In fact, "Stadt Mexiko" (similiar to "Stadt London", "Stadt Berlin", "Stadt Marburg", ...) should even be prefered over "Stadt Mexiko-Stadt". - 23:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's pretty good evidence. I just somehow managed to skip that part of your previous post. --WikiTiki89 15:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


To prevent further unreasend reverts by you:

  • e.g. "Anglokanadierin" is either derived from "Anglokanadier" or from "Kanadierin", but not from Kanadier.
  • it doesn't make sense to collect all words with -kanad- as releted terms. Terms with -kanada- rather belong to Kanada and terms with -kanadisch- rather belong to kanadisch. Maybe you can take a look at other entries, there's done this way, too.

- 20:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Lame Reversion[edit]

"Referring to a person without a disability as “lame” is offensive to many as it suggests a derogatory characterization of the physical condition from which the term was derived."

Regarding the change I made from "many" to "some" and your subsequent reversion. I can't think of any way of proving that usage is considered offensive to many and my personal experience would suggest it's not true, that it's not many but a very small minority of people who find it offensive. On the other hand it's very easy to prove that it is considered offensive by some. Do you have proof that the usage is considered offensive by a substantial number of people? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Let me ask you this instead: do you have substantial "proof" supporting your subjective personal experience? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Obviously not, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. My belief is as subjective as yours. It can't be proven either way that "many" people find the usage offensive without a substantial amount of research. I was hoping you'd either point me in the direction of research proving that many people find that usage of "lame" offensive or allow me to change the sentence from an unsubstantiated assertion to one which is easily proven. Let me ask again: Do you have proof that the usage is considered offensive by a substantial number of people? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Here's the thing, getting hung up on semantics – some, a few, many, a lot of etc. – is deflecting attention away from real issues: people habitually and callously using terms considered derogatory by people with disabilities. Do I have proof? No, unfortunately I haven't been able to find an empirical study dealing with this subject (not entirely sure if such a study is necessary though, I mean, do we need a study to confirm that a majority of people of African-American descent consider the N-word derogatory for it to be a fact?). However, you just have to search for "lame" and "offensive term" and you'll find some 400,000+ hits, quite a few of them linking to blog posts from people with disabilities, where they talk about how they feel when the word lame is used in everyday speech. To be completely blunt, as a rollbacker who keeps a close eye on anon edits, any arbitrary change which doesn't substantially improve an article, gets reverted. It's not personal; it's just us trying to maintain a form of consistency around here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I remain a sceptic, and totally reject the equivalence with "nigger". Keep up the good work! —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

If I may butt in, in my personal experience, I've never heard of anyone being offended by the word "lame". It's too pervasive of a word; and it's its use for people who actually have a disability is nowadays a bit old-fashioned. As for the words "some" and "many", these are weasel words used to convey their users' personal impression when the facts are unknown (I'm pointing out the problem, yet I know of no good solution). --WikiTiki89 14:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for butting in! I take your point on weasel words, at very least this is a controversial statement which raises a lot of interesting questions though I'm not sure if this is the best forum to discuss them. I'd never heard of anyone being offended by "lame" until last week, it puzzled me and that's how I found my way here. I wanted to tone that statement somewhat without diving headfirst into what Robbie calls the "real issues", but I can see that was naive. What it really comes down to is two competing subjectives, and as I can't even be bothered to register an account I can see why his should prevail. For the record: I do believe that "lame" is offensive to some for the reasons given, I don't believe it is offensive to "many" because in my experience the term is not used "habitually and callously" and (crucially) isn't taken that way in most cases. I found the comparison with "nigger" especially misleading, a word that's totally rotten to the core.—This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Japanese 適切な[edit]

Hi, You erased this compound, butiIt is often used. Shiromura Nekomao (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Shiromura Nekomao! Can you please show me where I made this edit? Can't seem to find it in my list of contributions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


Is macaronar a slur, or is it just informal? --Romanophile (contributions) 20:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Romanophile DEX lists it as colloquial. However, the term does convey a depreciative tone. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you know other synonyms for Italians? --Romanophile (contributions) 21:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@Romanophile Let's see...if we set macaronar aside, which is popular albeit somewhat depreciative, we have an archaic ital, regional and archaic talian and of course broscar (N.B. slang and pejorative) – funny fact, Romanians believe that it is in fact the Italians who are the true frogeaters, and not necessarily the French (although they might also be frog-loving people). --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you delete my adding informations ?[edit]

Why are you delete my adding informations ?

Because it's promotional material. Don't forget that Wiktionary is a virtual dictionary; we're neither Wikipedia nor LinkedIn. Please read this before redoing your changes, which I guarantee you will be reverted, by me or some other user/admin. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Just saying hi[edit]

😂😂 LMAO at whoever who added this to to hacker:

{ ThIs GoEs OuT 2 aLl ThE nIgGaS tHaT bE fLeXiN oN tHeIr RoOtEd IsP tHaT aRe CoNnEcTeD tO mY nEt ! ! ! }

Amin wordie (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

False Northing [edit]

False Northing Your rollback to the incorrect definition of False Northing is in error. It is the same/common error propagated throughout the internet ( I'm assuming someone got it wrong once and it just kept getting reused and reposted ). The definition as defined with the rollback will not produce the correct values. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I'm not contesting the validity of your contribution. However, you provided no sources whatsoever and your definition was overly complicated, not to mention that it was too long. Please remember that Wiktionary is a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Your rollback is error![edit]

anser 10:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no English entry for anser as a misspelling of answer. That's the reason why I reverted your change. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I requested a new entry here

and you reverted the request. Why? The word is in a recently published book and I gave the context for it. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Hi! I apologise for annulling the entry you added – I only saw the "uT". I added the entries again. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


Your rollback is in error. Granted, it's a somewhat dated meaning, but that is all. I'm afraid I do not have the experience to properly create a new entry for the term 'fout in de oorlog', but you might want to read w:nl:Goed en fout in de Tweede Wereldoorlog as an introduction, before deciding whether or not to revert the change again. Thank you! 11:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The reasons why I reverted your edit were (a) it wasn't properly formatted; (b) it was in Dutch which makes it inappropriate to have in the definitions section, and (c) it was most likely an expression and/or example, not a definition. Please read our guidelines before contributing. Evidently, I wasn't the only one who thought your edit was an error – it has since then been reverted by an administrator. --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Your rollback is in error[edit]

Your rollbacks here and here are indeed in error. "Unit trust" is a term that is found in other dictionaries too, and has a Wikipedia page. -- 07:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out! I apologise, I'll add the info again. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

"fariseu" and "ferice"[edit]

I added the Romanian term fariseu and slightly edited ferice. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Lo Ximiendo! Took a look and they look great. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


You're not an admin on en.wikt, are you? Would you be interested? You seem to revert a lot of vandalism. Equinox 20:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Shucks, I'm flattered. I am interested, but I'm still learning how things work around here so I would like to remain a patroller a little while longer. Can I take a rain check? Thanks though! --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
How about now? You {{speedy}} a lot of entries that you might as well delete yourself.__Gamren (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@Gamren It does imply a vote I guess? Well, I've become more experienced, so maybe the stars align this time. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it does. You may accept here. I am asked to remind you to specify your time zone (I'm leaving this in English so others will know they don't have to). I am further told to inform you that you have until midnight to accept (although if you don't make it, it's no big deal)__Gamren (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Gamren! I accepted your nomination. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Your vote has passed, you are an Admin. Please add your name to WT:Admin. Also, see Help:Sysop tools. —Stephen (Talk) 02:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the confidence! A special thank you to @Gamren who nominated me :-D I'll do my best and please let me know if there's anything in my conduct that I have to improve on. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Så lidt. Jeg så forresten i en bog, at det svenske ord for gruppe er grupp, således også gruppanalys, gruppegenskap osv., men gruppeparameter bliver til grupparameter. Har svensk en regel imod tre på hinanden følgende ens konsonanter?__Gamren (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hej @Gamren! Väldigt intressant iakttagelse! Du har helt rätt – en svensk skrivregel statuerar att man inte får ha tre konsonanter på rad i sammansättningar. Detta medför att vi helt enkelt tar bort en konsonant, t.ex. nattåg (natt + tåg), äggula (ägg + gula), glasstrut (glass + strut), mässkjorta (mäss + skjorta) o.s.v. Men det finns ett undantag – avstavning. Syftet med avstavningar är att dela upp ord ifall de exempelvis inte får plats på en rad. Om det finns en risk för att ordet skulle kunna misstolkas så lägger man till den borttagna konsonanten. T.ex. glasskål (glass + skål) blir glass-skål för att inte blandas ihop med glasskål (glas + skål). Ursäkta denna långa utläggning :-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Det skal du endelig ikke undskylde for, det er skam interessant at se lighederne og forskellene mellem så tætte sprog. Bindestreger bruger vi ikke så meget på dansk. Skaber det ikke problemer i tekstbehandlingsprogrammer der deler ord op ved linjeskift, eller er de smarte nok til at genindsætte bogstavet? For et program behøver jo, for overhovedet at kunne dele meningsfuldt, kende de ord den behandler. Selv foretrækker jeg helt at slå orddeling fra.
Problematikken med tredobbeltkonsonanter eksisterer ikke rigtig på dansk, da vi kun undtagelsesvis (primært i proprier og låneord som gløgg, stress, knarr) tillader ikke-intervokaliske dobbeltkonsonanter (hvilket inkluderer ordinitial og ordfinal position).__Gamren (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Visst är det för många förundransvärt att våra språk är så sammankopplade, och ändå så skilda från varandra :-) Hmmm...jag har faktiskt aldrig stött på problem i de olika ordbehandlingsprogrammen eller de lite mer avancerade editeringsprogrammen som jag använder dagligen. Har man en svensk version, borde det funka utan problem. Men det händer så klart att man tvingas göra manuella ändringar. När det kommer till bindestreck skulle jag vilja säga att vi har märkt begynnelsen till en revival – bindestreck har börjat användas allt oftare främst i samband med utländska ord, såsom YouTube-kanal, H&M-reklam, o.s.v. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


FYI, {{t-}} is actually long-deprecated; it's been a redirect to {{t}} for almost three years now, aside from a four-month period when it was simply deleted. —RuakhTALK 06:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Ruakh, but I haven't deliberately used it. Have I? --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, at fracture?diff=40546283. Not a big deal, though. —RuakhTALK 05:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Ahh, I see! Thanks for pointing that out. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


Why did you cancelled my edit? Austrian means a supporter of Austrian economics, an Academician or a layman.-- 14:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me about this. For starters, the edit seemed unlikely considering the second definition ("Just a person supporting the Austrian school") which is not something you'd expect to find in a dictionary. The wording was just off and the capitalisation was incorrect (it's called the Austrian School). But I see what you were trying to convey, so I'll add a definition which works out. I encourage you to read our guidelines before contributing again. Best Regards, --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


That word is more informal conversation than charla, chamuyo and lata are both lunfardo. Greetings. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

The reason I reverted your edit was because you didn't follow translation guidelines. Please don't add plain text in the translation section. Please read our guidelines before adding new translations. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Appendix:Swedish false cognates and false friends with Danish[edit]

Hej Robbie SWE,

Vil du verificere dette? På forhånd tak.__Gamren (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hej @Gamren! Tack för dina bidrag till listan! Jag har gjort väldigt små justeringar, måste dock erkänna att jag aldrig hade hört talas om blåmåndag. Men du vet vad man säger – man lär sig något nytt varje dag :-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Tusind tak!__Gamren (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I think your rollback is in error[edit]

Hello, I recently edited the folk page and added an Etymology 2 with a source. Just wanted to know why you reverted it. THANKS 19:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The source you added did not sustain your affirmation – the source referred to a translation page which didn't mention etymology whatsoever. What part of folk, which can be traced back to Old English and other Germanic languages, would be Hindustani? I'm sorry to say it, but it was too unclear and dubious, and that's the reason why I reverted your edit. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


ta-ididntno!:) ps.ta4leearnin~mymuisarm2-avagud1!:) 19:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome[edit]

(in response to the thank you sent me for a revert). --Dixtosa (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Your edits at rope (rollback in error)[edit]

Before I reinstate my edits, I would just like to note that "rope" is in fact commonly used as a sexual term. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I have added your definition back to the page. DTLHS (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I apologise for reverting your changes. However, is the definition grammatically correct? I'm refering to the "the shots semen" – I feel that there's a word missing, possibly "of". @DTLHS am I in the wrong here? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Finland Swedish pronunciation[edit]

Hi RobbieSWE, do you know of any online resources that have pronunciation on Finland Swedish? Just curious – AWESOME meeos * (「欺负」我) 08:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos unfortunately I don't have any online resources, just the Swedish article about the subject. If I manage to find anything, I'll let you know. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Romanian & Swedish[edit]

Hej (or should I say Hei) Robbie SWE, I've just been wondering about two very different languages that you can speak as native languages. How can that be the case? One of my theories is that you're a Romanian who was grown up in Sweden – AWESOME meeos * (「欺负」我) 23:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hej @Awesomemeeos! Your hunch is correct — my family relocated from Romania to Sweden when I was really young. I therefore consider myself a Swede :-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


To keep track of their contributions. Why would you want to delete that? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:D599:A3D8:A87C:4080 19:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Because you are currently an anon – you haven't created your own account and why would you want to track their contributions in the first place? Once you create an account you can create a personal watchlist. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
How can I create this kind of watchlist? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:25A4:A0E1:70D8:4F46 22:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I suggest that you register – choose a username and a password, it's as easy as that. Afterwards you'll see the label "Watchlist" besides "Preferences" – create your own watchlist and add how many pages you want. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Although admittedly, afaict you can't add specific users' contribs to your watchlist, just specific entries. — Kleio (t · c) 18:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I've added users to my raw watchlist so that I easily can find their latest contributions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


Barnstar of Reversion2.png A barnstar for you!

This barnstar is awarded to you for your hard work in reverting vandalism. Thank you very much!

Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


Just so you know, they're back again. —CodeCat 21:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

ːJa, ich bin wieder daǃ No, und?--/#Ionel Bănescu#/ 21:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


Can you please answer me why you deleted my addition to the page Gãrtsia.This add was vrry helpfull cause i added how is Greek called by Greek Aromanians -_-.Gãrtsia and Gartsescu are Slavic the correct is Grecu and Grecia Kp4816 (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Kp4816! I'm not contesting the use of the forms grecu and Grecia, however, you did not follow Wiktionary standards. I understand that you're pretty new around here, but please take the time to see how other articles are created to get the real look and feel we're after. I'll take a second look at the article and see what I can do. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

How Swedes speak english so well??[edit]

Hi @Robbie SWE, I wonder if you know how Swedes can speak English so well, that I don't even hear an accent from them? Is it because they are exposed to a lot of American TV shows? Or superb education? — AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 20:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: Well, there are several reasons;
(1) we start learning English in the 1st grade (we also have private English schools in every major city),
(2) we don't dub TV shows or movies (unless they're cartoons or kids' films),
(3) we're extremely Americanised (I studied intercultural communication at uni and we learned that Sweden is the fastest country in the world to acquire trends from the States),
(4) the historical ties to Anglophone countries are very strong (over 1 million Swedes emigrated to the US in the late 19th to early 20th century and the UK is a study abroad hot spot for Swedish students, including yours truly)
(5) last but not least, we're pretty good at creating stuff that people want (IKEA, H&M, Volvo, Spotify, "music" in general, etc.), which makes English a lingua franca for each and every business aspiring to become a global household name.
There are probably many more reasons why Swedes master English so well. Having said that, I assure you that not all Swedes speak English masterfully. There are loads of more or less funny faux pas committed by Swedes on a daily basis when speaking English, but I guess that's an entirely different conversation. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps, their accent may sound flawless and non-foreign, but it's their grammatical mistakes which reveal them as a foreigner? — AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 08:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I would say a little bit of both – accents vary and so does grammatical correctness. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Creating an RFV[edit]

Hi. When you tag the page you also need to create the RFV discussion so people can see it. Click the little + plus sign that appears on the tagged page. I did headass for you. Equinox 20:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Equinox! I intended on doing so, but got distracted elsewhere. Thank you for the heads-up though, I promise to be more careful from now on. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Why did you revert changes on mille?[edit]

The edit removed sourced, updated information. 13:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@ I felt that the changes, although sourced, were far too major to keep without having discussed the subject with the community first. I encourage you to open a discussion in the Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium in order to invite our experts to chime in. If it turns out that I have acted incorreclty, I apologise beforehand. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Full protection of pages[edit]

You shouldn't do this as it makes it impossible for bots to update pages automatically. Full protection should only be used if it's really necessary and rarely needs to be permanent. —CodeCat 19:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

My intention was to fulfil steps 10 and 11 here. I felt while doing it that I wasn't completely in the right, but I closed my eyes and hoped for the best. @CodeCat which level of protection is more appropriate? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Move protection is ok, although I haven't really seen people vandalise page with moves. For editing, semi-protection is ok, that just keeps IPs and new users out. —CodeCat 19:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I'm particularly slow tonight – blame it on all those Easter eggs I've been eating lately – does that mean that I have to change protection or am I good to go? --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd suggest reducing the edit protection on your user page. —CodeCat 20:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

why to revert soft brexit and hard brexit?[edit]

why to revert soft brexit and hard brexit? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I reverted you contributions because they did not improve the entries. Please remember that we are a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. I have a hard time seeing how adding arbitrary statements such as "[...]and resume full control over immigration" and "[...]or anything less than a full withdrawal" contribute to a clarification of what soft Brexit and hard Brexit mean. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)



Polish is my native language, and my edit was correct. Look here. Polish "insulina" in plural (Liczba mnoga) is "insuliny". But the explanation is in Polish so you will have a problem with understanding. You can also find in Polish Google: "różne insuliny", which means "different insulins".

But we can discuss the subject in Polish, if you wish ;-) Ja naprawdę wiem jak jest "insulina" w liczbie mnogiej, zwłaszcza po polsku. Pozdrawiam serdecznie. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I don't speak Polish I'm afraid. The reason why I reverted your edit is not that it was wrong; it was because it was added outside the standard template and the plural should be visible in the dropdown declension section anyway. Since I don't know the language, please feel free to check this category and see what template is appropriate for this entry. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@ please see the entry now. Do not add the plural outside the template again. Thank you! --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Good job. Now the table is correct. Thanks! 17:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


In reference to this edit, even when the formatting is off and it all looks weird, it's always better to try to fix something rather than to revert it. When you can't fix it or don't have the requisite knowledge, ping somebody who does. Luckily it was on my watchlist, since I had created the Swahili L2 there, but for most of them it just requires a bit of extra effort to ensure that content actually gets added. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge, sorry about that. I was going through anon contributions and taking into consideration that the person deleted categories, I just figured it was some kind of lite vandalism. Since my Swahili skills are practically inexistent, I didn't feel comfortable correcting anything. I'll keep this in mind from now on so thank you for the heads-up. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, I certainly appreciate you patrolling anons! Anyway, you can ping me if this anon ever reappears. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


Hey Rob. So, what did you want to discuss anyway? You know, one thing I'm interested in is the conditional tense in Aromanian, also once found in Old Romanian. Unfortunately my relatives that speak Aromanian are no longer around, so I'd have to do independent research online. And information on the grammar is rather scant. As of now, we only have it for a handful of articles, like cãntu. Word dewd544 (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Word dewd544 Sorry about the delay! Thank you for getting back to me. I'm fascinated by your deep understanding for Romance languages, and I'm grateful for the work you've done on Romanian and Aromanian. Your background is similar to mine – although I'm born in Romania, I also have Greek and Italian roots – so it's always interesting to hear your thoughts on Eastern Romance linguistics. Now, to your question about the conditional tense, unfortunately things get a bit trickier. When I studied Portuguese grammar and history at Uni, we learned that the conditional/subjunctive tense was the weakest feature past on from Latin. It didn't survive in Eastern Romance and in Western Romance it had to be reconstructed. The conditional/subjunctive tense is "dying" in Western Romance as well – good riddance if you ask me, I've always had a hard time grasping the concept of this tense which differs greatly from the Swedish conditional tense. Hope you manage to find more info on the subject and please feel free to share. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
You're right. It does seem to be used less and less even in Western Romance. Of course, it's completely gone in Romanian, but some vestigial/remnant forms of a synthetic conditional were still found in some of the really early Romanian writings up to the 17th century from what I recall. Obviously, that doesn't need including on here, but it is interesting simply from a historical linguistics point of view. Aromanian and Istro-Romanian (itself basically a 15th century offshoot of Romanian) also seems to have maintained some of it to some extent, but I'm not sure how much it's actually used in normal speech anymore. I was just interested in finding out more about this. And by being "reconstructed" in the Western languages, you mean that the conditional in general was basically a purely Romance creation, not stemming directly from Latin, which is true. It's constructed with the imperfect of Latin habere. Seems to have been originally periphrastic. Romanian still is, and Portuguese still uses it in speech often. Different languages seem to have taken from different elements from Latin, too. Anyway, I don't know much about Swedish... I'd imagine it's less complex grammatically than German, but more than English? Word dewd544 (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Word dewd544 Exactly, I agree with you – it is an interesting topic and I would also like to know more about the vestiges of this tense in Old Romanian. When it comes to Swedish I would say that if it isn't just as simplified as in English, then it's even more simplified. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

My Edit - PLAy My QIUZ !!![edit]

WHY Did YOu Revert My EDIT ??? I WAS Construtive Altough !!!

Your rollback is in error (no-goes/no-gos)[edit]

The title "no-gos" is, itself, an incorrect spelling/pluralisation of the term "no-go/es". At the very least "go" would require an apostrophe to show pluralisation: "go's".

Dictionary searches, and a general search of the internet, show either "no-goes" or "no-go's" for pluralisation, where dictionaries provide pluralised results. The majority of dictionaries do not include a plural form.

I can find only two results that utilise "no-gos", as per this Wiki entry. "" links to the Wikipedia article in question therefore creating problems as per its validity in regards the question of how to pluralise "no-go". It does, however, also show an entry above for: " no-goes". The only other result I can find is Google's dictionary, but Google does not provide information on its etymology or meaning, preferring to refer back to the singular "no-go".

Encarta, Macmillan (British and American), and American Heritage all utilise "no-goes" as the plural. 04:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean and I agree with you. However, I think it best if you were to bring this matter to the attention of the community. According to the entry, no-gos is the plural of no-go which is an alternative form of no go which is uncountable. I think that somewhere something went terribly wrong and it would be best if you present your arguments to the Tea Room. I would personally erase the entry altogether and mark no-go as uncountable. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Request / Advice needed[edit]

Hi, Sorry to bother you with such a request, but I created a module in the Module namespace when I intended to add it as a User Sandbox Module. My concern with moving the module is that I'd rather not create an unintended/unnecessary redirect from the initial module to my module sandbox.

What is your suggestion here? It's not a module that necessarily 'needs' to remain in the general Module namespace. Could you perhaps delete the module altogether -- as opposed to me just blanking the page or leaving it as is?

I appreciate your time,

Tezamen (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tezamen Hi! Thank you for contacting me! I'm afraid that I'm not so well-versed when it comes to modules and templates, but I'll ping others who might be able to help. (@DTLHS, @Erutuon, @Wyang) --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Tezamen You can move it to Module:User:Tezamen/Page_tabs (or some other similar name under your username). After moving modules, the old module will be deleted, rather than being kept as a redirect like pages in other namespaces. Wyang (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang Oh that sounds great! Will it return the old module to its original state (in other words, will it appear as though there never was a module there/page created in the first place)? Thanks for the help! Tezamen (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Tezamen No problem! The old module will have a note saying this page was previously moved to another page. An example can be seen here. Wyang (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Rv 'bucket of sunshine'[edit]

Was I reverted for any reason other than being not logged in? No reason was provided in the edit log. --2603:300A:A01:3600:7C8B:EBE3:62EB:1B97 15:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Is the definition a euphemism? In that case, it wasn't mentioned and you didn't provide citations or quotes to support this sense. This is the reason why it was reverted. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It is, and a simple google search brings up a good number of examples of its use. Where and how should I list sources? I assume sourcing works like Wikipedia and only mass-printed media is acceptable? --2603:300A:A01:3600:7C8B:EBE3:62EB:1B97 19:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Nevermind, I figured it out for myself. If this is not sufficient then I surrender. I would have appreciated being given some guidance rather than being treated as a common vandal. --2603:300A:A01:3600:7C8B:EBE3:62EB:1B97 22:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for readding the information together with citations. I assure you that my revert was not intended to make you feel like a vandal and I apologise if it made you feel that way. The rollback function doesn't allow us to give an explanation, but I'm glad that you reached out to me here to settle this issue. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi. Kamâl is Atatürk's given name. It's better to write this. - Ullierlich (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, as long as it's coherent I guess it's fine. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)